'This one's faking he's dead' 'He's dead now'

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=583322

As for the specific events in Fallujah, well they are an inevitable consequence of the New-American ideology. A set of ideals that states the end of destroying terrorism trumps all concerns for laws, domestic or international, and the concerns of humanity. There is a mindset functioning which sees these codes as a resctriction on the necessary actions of the military. It's a horribly macho 'whatever it takes' attitude. US soldiers are Neitzschean Ubermensch, casting off the restrictions of compassion and morality as the work for their ends.

The Marine battalion stormed an unidentified mosque Saturday in southern Fallujah after taking casualties from heavy sniper fire and attacks with rocket-propelled grenades. Ten insurgents were killed and five others were wounded in the mosque and an adjacent building.

The Marines displayed a cache of rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47 assault rifles that they said the men were holding. They said the arms were conclusive evidence that insurgents had been using mosques as fighting positions in Fallujah, which they said made the use of force appropriate. 

When the Marines left to advance farther south, the five wounded Iraqis, none of whose injuries appeared to be life-threatening, were left behind in the mosque for other Marines to evacuate for treatment.

Saturday, however, reports surfaced that mosques in the region had been reoccupied, including the mosque the Marine battalion had stormed the day before.

Two units that were not involved in Friday’s fighting advanced on the mosque, one moving around the back and the second, accompanied by Sites, from the front. Sites said he could hear gunfire from inside.

Sites was present when a lieutenant from one of the units asked a Marine what had happened inside the mosque. The Marine replied that there were people inside.

“Did you shoot them?” the lieutenant asked.

“Roger that, sir,” the second Marine replied.

“Were they armed?” the lieutenant asked.

The second Marine shrugged in reply.

Sites saw the five wounded men left behind on Friday still in the mosque. Four of them had been shot again, apparently by members of the squad that entered the mosque moments earlier. One appeared to be dead, and the three others were severely wounded. The fifth man was lying under a blanket, apparently not having been shot a second time.

One of the Marines noticed that one of the severely wounded men was still breathing. He did not appear to be armed, Sites said.

The Marine could be heard insisting: “He’s f---ing faking he’s dead — he’s faking he’s f---ing dead.” Sites then watched as the Marine raised his rifle and fired into the man’s head from point-blank range.

“Well, he’s dead now,” another Marine said.

When told that the man he shot was a wounded prisoner, the Marine, who himself had been shot in the face the day before but had already returned to duty, told Sites: “I didn’t know, sir. I didn’t know.”

AP Photographer Flees Fallujah

Sunday November 14, 2004 6:31 PM

By KATARINA KRATOVAC
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - In the weeks before the crushing military assault on his hometown, Bilal Hussein sent his parents and brother away from Fallujah to stay with relatives.

The 33-year-old Associated Press photographer stayed behind to capture insider images during the siege of the former insurgent stronghold.

``Everyone in Fallujah knew it was coming. I had been taking pictures for days,'' he said. ``I thought I could go on doing it.''

In the hours and days that followed, heavy bombing raids and thunderous artillery shelling turned Hussein's northern Jolan neighborhood into a zone of rubble and death. The walls of his house were pockmarked by coalition fire.

``Destruction was everywhere. I saw people lying dead in the streets, wounded were bleeding and there was no one to come and help them. Even the civilians who stayed in Fallujah were too afraid to go out,'' he said.

``There was no medicine, water, no electricity nor food for days.''

By Tuesday afternoon, as U.S. forces and Iraqi rebels engaged in fierce clashes in the heart of his neighborhood, Hussein snapped.

``U.S. soldiers began to open fire on the houses, so I decided that it was very dangerous to stay in my house,'' he said.

Hussein said he panicked, seizing on a plan to escape across the Euphrates River, which flows on the western side of the city

``I wasn't really thinking,'' he said. ``Suddenly, I just had to get out. I didn't think there was any other choice.''

In the rush, Hussein left behind his camera lens and a satellite telephone for transmitting his images. His lens, marked with the distinctive AP logo, was discovered two days later by U.S. Marines next to a dead man's body in a house in Jolan.

AP colleagues in the Baghdad bureau, who by then had not heard from Hussein in 48 hours, became even more worried.

Hussein moved from house to house - dodging gunfire - and reached the river.

``I decided to swim ... but I changed my mind after seeing U.S. helicopters firing on and killing people who tried to cross the river.''

He watched horrified as a family of five was shot dead as they tried to cross. Then, he ``helped bury a man by the river bank, with my own hands.''

``I kept walking along the river for two hours and I could still see some U.S. snipers ready to shoot anyone who might swim. I quit the idea of crossing the river and walked for about five hours through orchards.''

He met a peasant family, who gave him refuge in their house for two days. Hussein knew a driver in the region and sent a message to another AP colleague, Ali Ahmed, in nearby Ramadi.

Ahmed relayed the news that Hussein was alive to AP's Baghdad bureau. He sent a second message back to Hussein that a fisherman in nearby Habaniyah would ferry the photographer to safety by boat.

``At the end of the boat ride, Ali was waiting for me. He took me to Baghdad, to my office.''

Sitting safely in the AP's offices, a haggard-looking Hussein offered a tired smile of relief.

``It was a terrible experience in which I learned that life is precious,'' he said. ``I am happy that I am still alive after being close to death during these past days.''

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

In the First World War, on the Western Front, Allied soldiers routinely executed enemy prisoners whilst officially escorting them away from the front lines. They would be filed under "shot whilst trying to escape".

I can't think opf any conflict that's been fought this century in which the geneva convention was adhered to./

the geneva convention seems more honoured in the breach than the observance in cases where an army are fighting insurgents who will almost certainly not observe said convention themselves, see also the viet cong. this is obviously no excuse but it does make the situation more understandable.

2. By re-electing GWB, the US has given a thumbs-up to a xenophobic, isolationist position that would ignore any international or internal outcry over this incident.

3. In a society that I would consider just, this soldier wouldn't have been out in battle in the first place, seeing as he had apparently been SHOT IN THE FACE THE DAY BEFORE.

Mostly because something even more audacious is sure to happen/surface soon.

The problem is, it takes a phecking nitwit to join the army in the first place "yeah sure, I'm joining the army for career prospects". I mean, the army has had a pretty steady intake of apes, even when they were getting their heads blown off by the potato munchers on the shankhill road in
belfast.

One can assume that if they a) had a better grasp of the nuances of
international politics or b) had a brain, they wouldn't enlist in the first
place.

-- C.Taylor (C.Taylo...), November 16th, 2004.

I'm not sure about this... my understanding is that in the first world war (and other wars) armies in practice tend not to take prisoners - enemy troops trying to surrender during combat just get shot out of hand. But if they have managed to surrender in some other way they tend to do alright.

Anyway, I think these events are an already natural side-effect of the horrific nture of war, exacerbated by an ideology which condones and even demands such actions.

Fox refers to anyone who's been killed in Fallujah as "terrorists".

This made my blood run cold, though.

Dickhead

-- Ol' Dirty Dadaismus (kcoyne3...), November 16th, 2004.

entrenchment tools have always been preferred hand to hand weapons. Both sides in both world wars used them extensively.

I think both sides in the first world war would summarily execute machine gunners or anyone captured with telescopic sites.

In Stalingrad the Russians had a special way of executing German flamethrower operators they captured. I have never been able to find out what that way was.

but this story is absolutely typical of how every war is fought. The idea that American soldiers, during battle, won't kill unarmed or wounded 'enemies' (read: anyone not dressed in an US uniform) is a happy myth peddled to the folks back home so they'll suffer fewer pangs of conscience in supporting unspeakable acts of violence outside of their direct line of sight. Soldiers know the truth, but bury their knowledge because it fucking hurts.

If it makes any difference to you, American soldiers are well-trained professionals and probably achieve a lower marginal rate of atrocities than most armies. But war itself is an atrocity by its nature. Everyone loses. Everyone gets hurt. Controlled, contained and discriminate violence is a myth. We believe it because we want to, not because its true.

go watch Black Hawk Down (remarkably similar environment to Fallujah), feel THE FEAR, then come back and be sanctimonious about rules of engagement in urban close quarters battle.

if you've been shot at for 3 days straight, missed death by millimetres/fractions of seconds, watched your workmates having various body parts and vital organs removed on a whim of fate and snuffed people because if you didn't they would come back and kill you, your moral compass is gonna be fucked anyhow.

it doesn't make it "right".

war isn't right. these people arrive at a pragmatic mentality where if there is a 10% chance that a wounded enemy combatant could recover and cause them or their comrades damage (last hurrah-style), and there aren't the resources to secure and remove them to detention then the only survival option is to kill them.

that said, i'm sure that circumstances are radically different in fallujah from "BHD" in mogadishu - 12,000 troops on the ground? if anything that points to a command and control failure, but you can't start crucifying grunts for being animals.

war has turned them into that already - and therefore by proxy all of us.

Sites saw the five wounded men left behind on Friday still in the mosque. Four of them had been shot again, apparently by members of the squad that entered the mosque moments earlier. One appeared to be dead, and the three others were severely wounded. The fifth man was lying under a blanket, apparently not having been shot a second time.

One of the Marines noticed that one of the severely wounded men was still breathing. He did not appear to be armed, Sites said.

The Marine could be heard insisting: “He’s f---ing faking he’s dead — he’s faking he’s f---ing dead.” Sites then watched as the Marine raised his rifle and fired into the man’s head from point-blank range.

“Well, he’s dead now,” another Marine said.

When told that the man he shot was a wounded prisoner, the Marine, who himself had been shot in the face the day before but had already returned to duty, told Sites: “I didn’t know, sir. I didn’t know.”

I repeat that neither to counteract John's post nor to support it, just to note that that's all we have to go on for now.

So hold the dot-joining, or at least join different dots.

I have seen Black Hawk Down. It doesn't help at all.

My source for this is Robert Graves' autobiography, Goodbye To All That. He says that surrendered German troops, being escorted away from the front line, would frequently be killed by their escorts. Some countries' soldiers had a worse reputation than others for killing surrendered troops - Canadians being particularly bad - but almost all officers did it at one point or another.

"The troops with the worst reputation for acts of violence against prisoners were the Canadians (and later the Australians). The Canadians' motive was said to be revenge for a Canadian found crucified with bayonets in his hands and feet in a German trench. This atrocity had never been substantiated; nor did we believe the story, freely circulated, that the Canadians crucified a German officer in revenge shortly afterwards. How far this reputation for atrocities was deserved, and how far it could be ascribed to the overseas habits of bragging and leg-pulling, we could not decide. At all events, most overseas men and some British troops, made atrocities against prisoners a boast, not a confession."

He then recounts two first-hand accounts he had been told by officers who had murdered enemy prisoners, one Canadian and one Australian.

Incidentally, according to a documentary I saw some months ago, the story of the crucified Canadian was substantiated in recent years, and the victim identified.

There is no the Geneva Convention, there's about a dozen of them on different subjects with different start dates. A Geneva Convention about treatment of prisoners of war in 1929 was the first to deal with the subject, which is why stories about WWI aren't really of much use. I mean, the idea is that we progress. Stuff like this will still happen, but what's important is that it's prosecuted, that it's clearly seen to be wrong.

Yours?

And you know this how? Everything I've read says the vast majority of the people they've captured are Iraqis (assuming you're using the definition of foreigners = terrorists). Either way, you're right that the people they're fighting are nasty sons of bitches, and it's hard to get too exercised about their death. OTOH, just because summary execution of prisoners often happens in wars, that doesn't make it exactly morally acceptable.

What's weird about this whole thing is that there have been many worse cases -- whole families executed by accident -- throughout the conflict.

"Thinking that people in battle adhere strictly to the principles of Geneva Convention seems to me to be wishful thinking verging on self-delusion."

As a kid I could never get my head around the concept of a "war crime". I was baffled by the fact that during a war, you could be punished for killing someone, regardless of how you did it. Not to sound naive or simplistic, but isn't that the whole reason you go to war? To kill a whole bunch of the other guys? How can anyone assume to attach any kind of logic or legal framework to something as insane as a war? Is shooting an unarmed or injured combatant any worse than dropping bombs on civillians? Because there's been a whole lot of that during George's quest to liberate the Iraqis and I'm quite sure that nobody will ever be prosecuted for it.

but i know what you are saying

i just dont even care anymore. bush could be shooting schoolkids in the white house and i might care again